After reading numerous articles about the Socratic origin of coaching, I’ve thought of refute such argumentation. Even there is a company’s HR and Coaching that is referred to as the Greek philosopher (1). Socrates wasn’t a coach, was a philosopher. And coaching can be a philosophy, but not philosophical. The Socratic method in his student Plato’s dialogues, emerges as a fundamental character of that work, on whose banks entered the history of philosophy which is also the history of Western thought.

Penalver says accurately, than the dialectics teaches what he finds teaching (2). Everyone knows, that the method of Socrates is the mayeutico. One who through questions to the peer, going slowly extracting wisdom or wisdom of the questioned. It has classically interpreted as if it were a midwife’s own process. The mother of Socrates is said to that he was midwife at birth in Athens. In this sense it is said that the Socratic process consists more in out-of, as in put-in (3). And hence many coachings affirm that you as Socrates, the coach can never put or impose the wisdom, but should be out in the light of the coachee (questioned). As if the coach would awaken us from the oblivion of being heideggerian.

The same Steiner, interpreted that Socrates taught nothing. But the truth is, that Socrates died poisoned with Hemlock, by fellow coacheados or taught. Do you want to end up like, Coach? the coach cannot be said as the one who only knows that he knows nothing. The coach cannot be limited to listen oracles at Delphi, nor Greek mediums. The coach cannot exercise as a midwife. Socrates was condemned by Athens, why was the Gadfly of Athens. Socrates wanted to demonstrate with his method that nobody knows that they know nothing. It is very different. Socrates was not pleased to his pupil, but Scotland it and aguijoneaba it as the Gadfly on the Io cow.(4) .